Fear, uncertainty, and doubt fills the comments section of virtually every news article regarding wind energy. That's normal, opposition usually rallies the allies so that public outcry looks larger then it really is.
When large independent institutions look at the questions though, their findings do not support the rhetoric.
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs did a real estate study on over 7,000 homes in proximity to wind parks, and it doesn't support the anti wind comments.
The Australian EPA published a study on wind farm infrasound, and it doesn't support the anti wind view either.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, and I quote, "convened a panel of independent experts to identify any documented or potential health impacts of risks that may be associated with exposure to wind turbines, and, specifically, to facilitate discussion of wind turbines and public health based on scientific findings". Guess what, it doesn't support.....there's a trend forming here.
These people, willingly or otherwise, are spreading the misinformation brought forth by the likes of the Koch brothers, the American Traditions Institute, and the always imaginative US Tea Party.
Don't take what they, or I, have to say at face value, go and read the reports, and make your own decision.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/impactstudy.htm
http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/impact-wind-power-projects-residential-property-values-united-states-multi-site-hedonic
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/advanced_search.php?k=infrasound&x=25&y=20
Friday, February 22, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
PK threatens to SLAPP me!
Another note from my new friend Paul K;
Actually DL, why don't you just direct everyone to our site?
(Site address removed)
Give folks a chance to see a side the corporate psychopaths in the wind industry don't want you to know about?
Civil disobediance seemed fine when the left instigated it, but now when it's against them, they squeal like kindergarten children.
By the way, we hold no membership in Wind Concerns Ontario. Unless you can provide the proof of membership or a receipt indicating such, I'd be careful about what accusations you make.
*As pointed out in previous posts, this gentleman's site states he and his wife joined an "anti-turbine group", now he's telling me to stop promoting that fact? (Again, if it's not WCO, then which anti group is it? That question has been posted before, but the only response has been...."I'd be careful about what accusations you make." )
My suggestion, if you don't want people to know, don't post it on your web site.
SLAPP - "strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition. The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate."
It's unfortunate that people like this, who pretend to know the truth, and who try to force that truth onto others, when pushed on what they say and do, revert to more threats in order to solve the issue at hand.
It's unfortunate that they don't live up to the standards they demand from others. Sad really. And it's driving a wedge through rural Ontario.
Actually DL, why don't you just direct everyone to our site?
(Site address removed)
Give folks a chance to see a side the corporate psychopaths in the wind industry don't want you to know about?
Civil disobediance seemed fine when the left instigated it, but now when it's against them, they squeal like kindergarten children.
By the way, we hold no membership in Wind Concerns Ontario. Unless you can provide the proof of membership or a receipt indicating such, I'd be careful about what accusations you make.
*As pointed out in previous posts, this gentleman's site states he and his wife joined an "anti-turbine group", now he's telling me to stop promoting that fact? (Again, if it's not WCO, then which anti group is it? That question has been posted before, but the only response has been...."I'd be careful about what accusations you make." )
My suggestion, if you don't want people to know, don't post it on your web site.
SLAPP - "strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition. The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate."
It's unfortunate that people like this, who pretend to know the truth, and who try to force that truth onto others, when pushed on what they say and do, revert to more threats in order to solve the issue at hand.
It's unfortunate that they don't live up to the standards they demand from others. Sad really. And it's driving a wedge through rural Ontario.
More of Mr Kuster.....
Paul Kuster has left a new comment on your post "Loris' husband responds...privately. Well its not ...":
"Since this site obviously hasn't got the testicular courage to post my last comment, and probably not this one, but I'll give you my email address and you can contact me there and I'd be pleased to tell you all you need to know about me.
(email address removed)
*I must be missing something here? His previous comment WAS the LAST POST, and I responded to it, line by line?
_______________________________________________________________________
The question I have now regards the last sentence. Before me is an invitation to meet with the man who is the editor of a web site that promotes hatred and mistrust, and writes that civil disobedience is an acceptable form of protest against the "tyranny" that is the Ontario government.
(On a side note; I assume PK has never lived anywhere outside of Canada, for, if he had, he may understand that the use of the word "tyranny" is a gross exaggeration. Syria, Lybia, life with cartels, are all qualified examples of REAL tyranny.)
So, is more hatred and lies what this debate needs? Of course not. Not even Jane Wilson, the leader of WCO agrees with his position. That's an area where both sides of this debate can agree, calmer solutions need to prevail. Without it, threats of personal injury and property damage will be what drives this artificial debate.
Between the use of firearms, arson, vandalism, personal threats, threats of legal action, and damage to property, there is a manipulation going on that is designed to control this debate through the use of fear and intimidation. No debate has ever been solved equitably, when the threat of violence is used as a bargaining chip.
I personally know of supporters who have had acts of violence perpetrated against them. As well as threats, they've had damaged vehicles, and been heckled and ridiculed in public, with the children present in a shallow attempt to get them to back off their support of renewable energy. How does this foster an open line of communication?
Yet this group continues to try to paint the GEA as the perpetrator of this discontent. When someone needs to stoop to the levels mentioned above, they effectively give up their position, and credibility on the matter at hand. You may have (but, not in this case) all the right answers, but if you punch somebody first, they'll never hear what you have to say.
So it's time for this group of citizens to stop acting like spoiled children, who know nothing better then temper tantrums, and ask themselves, if this was how their kids acted at school, would they except it?
"Since this site obviously hasn't got the testicular courage to post my last comment, and probably not this one, but I'll give you my email address and you can contact me there and I'd be pleased to tell you all you need to know about me.
(email address removed)
*I must be missing something here? His previous comment WAS the LAST POST, and I responded to it, line by line?
_______________________________________________________________________
The question I have now regards the last sentence. Before me is an invitation to meet with the man who is the editor of a web site that promotes hatred and mistrust, and writes that civil disobedience is an acceptable form of protest against the "tyranny" that is the Ontario government.
(On a side note; I assume PK has never lived anywhere outside of Canada, for, if he had, he may understand that the use of the word "tyranny" is a gross exaggeration. Syria, Lybia, life with cartels, are all qualified examples of REAL tyranny.)
So, is more hatred and lies what this debate needs? Of course not. Not even Jane Wilson, the leader of WCO agrees with his position. That's an area where both sides of this debate can agree, calmer solutions need to prevail. Without it, threats of personal injury and property damage will be what drives this artificial debate.
Between the use of firearms, arson, vandalism, personal threats, threats of legal action, and damage to property, there is a manipulation going on that is designed to control this debate through the use of fear and intimidation. No debate has ever been solved equitably, when the threat of violence is used as a bargaining chip.
I personally know of supporters who have had acts of violence perpetrated against them. As well as threats, they've had damaged vehicles, and been heckled and ridiculed in public, with the children present in a shallow attempt to get them to back off their support of renewable energy. How does this foster an open line of communication?
Yet this group continues to try to paint the GEA as the perpetrator of this discontent. When someone needs to stoop to the levels mentioned above, they effectively give up their position, and credibility on the matter at hand. You may have (but, not in this case) all the right answers, but if you punch somebody first, they'll never hear what you have to say.
So it's time for this group of citizens to stop acting like spoiled children, who know nothing better then temper tantrums, and ask themselves, if this was how their kids acted at school, would they except it?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Loris' husband responds...
In response to my post (see "Who is driving a wedge"), Paul Griffin, or is it Paul Kuster, (hard to tell when people don't/won't use their real names) sent me this email (his words are in black, my response is in blue);
"Get your facts straight Don. We are not card carrying members of Wind Concerns Ontario. If not WCO, then which group did you join? You have posted on your web site that you and yours joined an "anti-turbine group". Either you did, or you didn't, which is it? No matter which answer you choose, you expose yourself.
Don't fault me for what you post on your web site.
Further to this, Ms Kuster (Griffin? Hesch?) posted, "You asked if we were members of an anti-wind 'organization' and I said we were not". She also posted, "That site also does NOT have strong ties to WCO or any other anti-wind group."
I believe that the above statements offer very open insights into how these people manage, or possibly mismanage the information they choose to share.
As for a wedge, it's the majority of rural Ont. and the useful idiots in urban centres as to where the wedge is. The GEA has never visited someones property in order to picket them, has never threatened anybody with a gun, has not perpetrated acts of arson, has not caused thousands of dollars in damage through acts of civil disobedience, has never shown up at a community meeting with the intent of not allowing others to speak, the list goes on. Nor has it ever posted, " YOU GO PEOPLE!" regarding acts of sabotage and vandalism.
All we're doing is pushing back against the corporate psychopaths such as yourself Ummm, I work for myself, and it's far from corporate. As for the term "psychopaths" that's just more of the standard BS from someone who finds themselves on the wrong side of history, and has run out of constructive arguments in the wind industry.
The studies you cite are only in contrast to the so-called 17 studies the pro-wind side produced and was systematically debunked and destroyed.
I didn't realize the the Mass Gov (health), Australian EPA (infra sound), Lawrence Berkley National Labs (property values), etc are considered pro-wind organizations?
Can't blame us trying to at least level the playing field. Level the playing field is one thing, promoting hatred through the use of misinformation and outright lies is another. After all, lying is what this was all about in the first place.
Unlike your rhetoric , I can offer far more factual arguments Please do Mr Griffin. But please, no more useless information produced by other members of your group. It's more then a little biased, and normally based on junk science and supported solely by other members.
will hopefully spare your children and mine the oppressive bill still to come. My children are good, thank you very much. Thanks for the (wind)concern, but I'll pass.
And so that everything is transparent, I own a company called Sun Wind Benefits. We manufacture small scale wind and water energy systems for rural and remote properties. We also offer our products to people and families that wish to remove part of their load from the grid.
At no time have I ever worked for the big wind companies, nor have I been involved in the Ontario MicroFIT program.
I am a supporting member of Friends of Wind Ontario. In fact I ask everybody who's starting to view this "anti" rhetoric as a circus side show, to log onto http://friendsofwind.ca/ and sign up.
Paul, in the interest of transparency, who do you work for? Power Workers Union perhaps? Bruce Nuclear? And please, no more lying, you know the truth will come out.
"Get your facts straight Don. We are not card carrying members of Wind Concerns Ontario. If not WCO, then which group did you join? You have posted on your web site that you and yours joined an "anti-turbine group". Either you did, or you didn't, which is it? No matter which answer you choose, you expose yourself.
Don't fault me for what you post on your web site.
Further to this, Ms Kuster (Griffin? Hesch?) posted, "You asked if we were members of an anti-wind 'organization' and I said we were not". She also posted, "That site also does NOT have strong ties to WCO or any other anti-wind group."
I believe that the above statements offer very open insights into how these people manage, or possibly mismanage the information they choose to share.
As for a wedge, it's the majority of rural Ont. and the useful idiots in urban centres as to where the wedge is. The GEA has never visited someones property in order to picket them, has never threatened anybody with a gun, has not perpetrated acts of arson, has not caused thousands of dollars in damage through acts of civil disobedience, has never shown up at a community meeting with the intent of not allowing others to speak, the list goes on. Nor has it ever posted, " YOU GO PEOPLE!" regarding acts of sabotage and vandalism.
All we're doing is pushing back against the corporate psychopaths such as yourself Ummm, I work for myself, and it's far from corporate. As for the term "psychopaths" that's just more of the standard BS from someone who finds themselves on the wrong side of history, and has run out of constructive arguments in the wind industry.
The studies you cite are only in contrast to the so-called 17 studies the pro-wind side produced and was systematically debunked and destroyed.
I didn't realize the the Mass Gov (health), Australian EPA (infra sound), Lawrence Berkley National Labs (property values), etc are considered pro-wind organizations?
Can't blame us trying to at least level the playing field. Level the playing field is one thing, promoting hatred through the use of misinformation and outright lies is another. After all, lying is what this was all about in the first place.
Unlike your rhetoric , I can offer far more factual arguments Please do Mr Griffin. But please, no more useless information produced by other members of your group. It's more then a little biased, and normally based on junk science and supported solely by other members.
will hopefully spare your children and mine the oppressive bill still to come. My children are good, thank you very much. Thanks for the (wind)concern, but I'll pass.
And so that everything is transparent, I own a company called Sun Wind Benefits. We manufacture small scale wind and water energy systems for rural and remote properties. We also offer our products to people and families that wish to remove part of their load from the grid.
At no time have I ever worked for the big wind companies, nor have I been involved in the Ontario MicroFIT program.
I am a supporting member of Friends of Wind Ontario. In fact I ask everybody who's starting to view this "anti" rhetoric as a circus side show, to log onto http://friendsofwind.ca/ and sign up.
Paul, in the interest of transparency, who do you work for? Power Workers Union perhaps? Bruce Nuclear? And please, no more lying, you know the truth will come out.
Who's driving the wedge into rural Ontario?
This is too funny not to post. This was a comment exchange between myself, and Laura Griffin, a confirmed "wind warrior" (as she calls herself). The conversation took place in regards to the recent letter received by the LFP, "Letter threatens Ontario farmers with wind turbines on land".
So without further ado, I bring you a written conversation with Laura Griffin (Hesch).
Myself;
"The anti-wind movement likes to tell everyone that the GEA is "driving a wedge into rural Ontario"? With the anti movement performing acts of vandalism, threats involving a firearm, and now threats against farmers, who is driving that wedge?
This is reprinted from one of the larger, anti web sites, with strong ties to Wind Concerns Ontario,
"Editor’s note: As responsible law-abiding citizens, I have to say that we at ------- just really can’t condone this … type of …. ROFLOL! Okay! Stop! Stop! Stop! I can’t. I just can’t say it with a straight face. YOU GO PEOPLE! The time to fight back has long since come and gone. Once your elected representatives abandon the citizens of a province or country in favour of kickbacks and multi-billion dollar scams, it’s time to take matters into our own hands! A rousing HUZZAH to the perpetrators, if this was — in fact — sabotage! – DQ)"
So the people who run and support the anti movement apparently condone this type of behaviour."
Laura Griffins response;
"I happen to know the site to which you are referring and that comment was not related to this article. That site also does NOT have strong ties to WCO or any other anti-wind group. That site is a "reference site" for news from around the world about the dangers of wind turbines and the detrimental effect they have on our environment, wildlife and humans.
Maybe it's you who needs to get your facts straight Mr. Lesko."
Yet, right there on her website, "We joined a local anti-turbine group."
Well, I took Loris advice and spent 5 minutes researching who owns the web site.....
Myself;
"You state above that the web site IS NOT CONNECTED TO WCO?
Funny, you're the one listed as the registrant. In fact, here's the copy;
Registered through: Automattic
Domain Name: QUIXOTESLASTSTAND.COM
Registrant: Lori Griffin
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WORDPRESS.COM
NS2.WORDPRESS.COM
"That site also does NOT have strong ties to WCO or any other anti-wind group."
Laura Griffin
"We joined a local anti-turbine group."
Laura Griffin, Paul Kuster
(This couple started a anti-wind action web site, and joined a "local anti-turbine group", but those two entities aren't closely connected?)
So, what does this mean? For starters it clearly shows that some of the most vocal members involved in the anti-wind movement, are liars. Not the "opps, I made a mistake kind", but outright, in your face, no holds barred liars. But more significantly it shows that the antis are willing to do just about anything in order to get their way.
As a father of three I'm well aware of how children use tactics to manipulate and get what they want. I see the same skill set coming out of the anti movement. If they're willing to lie about who operates a web site, what can we expect from them regarding health or noise complaints?
Taken one step farther, almost ALL published studies that claim to show how wind energy is fraught with danger, have been produced by anti-wind advocates. Names like Lansink, Arimini and Nisenbaum are all card carrying members*. And they produce studies that fly in the face of real, peer reviewed science. How credible can any of the info be when we've already seen how the higher ups act? How credible can what they say be when Arimini is on record stating that he "already knows the outcome" of his study, more then 2 years in advance?
The anti movement is clearly using lies, threats and manipulation in order to hijack the process in Ontario. Through intimidation and "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it" they are driving a wedge into rural Ontario. And, like the children mentioned before, are trying to blame it on someone else.
*The term "card carrying member" is used as a figure of speech. To the best of my knowledge this group does not give out cards for membership, nor do they provide receipts for membership. If someone has evidence to the contrary.....send it my way.
So without further ado, I bring you a written conversation with Laura Griffin (Hesch).
Myself;
"The anti-wind movement likes to tell everyone that the GEA is "driving a wedge into rural Ontario"? With the anti movement performing acts of vandalism, threats involving a firearm, and now threats against farmers, who is driving that wedge?
This is reprinted from one of the larger, anti web sites, with strong ties to Wind Concerns Ontario,
"Editor’s note: As responsible law-abiding citizens, I have to say that we at ------- just really can’t condone this … type of …. ROFLOL! Okay! Stop! Stop! Stop! I can’t. I just can’t say it with a straight face. YOU GO PEOPLE! The time to fight back has long since come and gone. Once your elected representatives abandon the citizens of a province or country in favour of kickbacks and multi-billion dollar scams, it’s time to take matters into our own hands! A rousing HUZZAH to the perpetrators, if this was — in fact — sabotage! – DQ)"
So the people who run and support the anti movement apparently condone this type of behaviour."
Laura Griffins response;
"I happen to know the site to which you are referring and that comment was not related to this article. That site also does NOT have strong ties to WCO or any other anti-wind group. That site is a "reference site" for news from around the world about the dangers of wind turbines and the detrimental effect they have on our environment, wildlife and humans.
Maybe it's you who needs to get your facts straight Mr. Lesko."
Yet, right there on her website, "We joined a local anti-turbine group."
Well, I took Loris advice and spent 5 minutes researching who owns the web site.....
Myself;
"You state above that the web site IS NOT CONNECTED TO WCO?
Funny, you're the one listed as the registrant. In fact, here's the copy;
Registered through: Automattic
Domain Name: QUIXOTESLASTSTAND.COM
Registrant: Lori Griffin
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WORDPRESS.COM
NS2.WORDPRESS.COM
"That site also does NOT have strong ties to WCO or any other anti-wind group."
Laura Griffin
"We joined a local anti-turbine group."
Laura Griffin, Paul Kuster
(This couple started a anti-wind action web site, and joined a "local anti-turbine group", but those two entities aren't closely connected?)
So, what does this mean? For starters it clearly shows that some of the most vocal members involved in the anti-wind movement, are liars. Not the "opps, I made a mistake kind", but outright, in your face, no holds barred liars. But more significantly it shows that the antis are willing to do just about anything in order to get their way.
As a father of three I'm well aware of how children use tactics to manipulate and get what they want. I see the same skill set coming out of the anti movement. If they're willing to lie about who operates a web site, what can we expect from them regarding health or noise complaints?
Taken one step farther, almost ALL published studies that claim to show how wind energy is fraught with danger, have been produced by anti-wind advocates. Names like Lansink, Arimini and Nisenbaum are all card carrying members*. And they produce studies that fly in the face of real, peer reviewed science. How credible can any of the info be when we've already seen how the higher ups act? How credible can what they say be when Arimini is on record stating that he "already knows the outcome" of his study, more then 2 years in advance?
The anti movement is clearly using lies, threats and manipulation in order to hijack the process in Ontario. Through intimidation and "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it" they are driving a wedge into rural Ontario. And, like the children mentioned before, are trying to blame it on someone else.
*The term "card carrying member" is used as a figure of speech. To the best of my knowledge this group does not give out cards for membership, nor do they provide receipts for membership. If someone has evidence to the contrary.....send it my way.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Conservative think tanks step up attacks
I was recently asked, "who is against renewable energy"? The answer is, lots of people. Why? There's usually a pot-o-gold (black gold that is) at the foot of these antis. Here is a re-posted article from the UK Guardian;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative think tanks step up attacks against Obama's clean energy strategy
Confidential memo seen by Guardian calls for climate change sceptics to turn American public against solar and wind power
A network of ultra-conservative groups is ramping up an offensive on multiple fronts to turn the American public against wind farms and Barack Obama's energy agenda.
A number of rightwing organisations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.
Now a confidential strategy memo seen by the Guardian advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters.
The strategy proposal was prepared by a fellow of the American Tradition Institute (ATI) – although the thinktank has formally disavowed the project.
The proposal was discussed at a meeting of self-styled 'wind warriors' from across the country in Washington DC last February.
"These documents show for the first time that local Nimby anti-wind groups are co-ordinating and working with national fossil-fuel funded advocacy groups to wreck the wind industry," said Gabe Elsner, a co-director of the Checks and Balances, the accountability group which unearthed the proposal and other documents.
Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."
It suggests setting up "dummy businesses" to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a "counter-intelligence branch" to track the wind energy industry. It also calls for spending $750,000 to create an organisation with paid staff and tax-exempt status dedicated to building public opposition to state and federal government policies encouraging the wind energy industry.
The proposal was reviewed by John Droz Jr, a senior fellow at ATI, for discussion at the Washington meeting, which he also organised. ATI's executive director, Tom Tanton, said Droz had acted alone on the memo, although he confirmed he remains a fellow at the thinktank.
Droz is a longtime opponent of wind farms, arguing that the technology has not yet been proven and that wind technology should not receive government support. He claims 10,000 subscribers to his anti-wind-power email newsletter.
In a telephone interview, Droz said the Washington strategy session was his own initiative, and that neither he nor any of the participants had been paid for attending the session.
Their main priority was co-ordinating PR strategy. "Our No 1 reason for getting together was to talk about whether there should be agreement to talk about a common message."
The strategy session is the latest evidence of a concerted attack on the clean energy industry by thinktanks and lobby groups connected to oil and coal interests and free-market ideologues.
ATI is part of a loose coalition of ultra-conservative thinktanks and networks united by their efforts to discredit climate science and their close connections to the oil and gas industry, including the Koch family. Those groups include the Heartland Institute, the John Locke Foundation, and Americans for Prosperity, the organising arm of the Tea Party movement.
ATI is a relatively new entrant, coming to national attention only last year when it filed lawsuits against climate scientists including Michael Mann and James Hansen.
Campaign groups and spokespersons for the wind industry say there has been a sharp rise in organised opposition since early 2009 when Obama put investment in renewable energy at the heart of his economic recovery plan.
"We do see evidence of co-ordination," said Peter Kelley a spokesman for the American Wind Energy Assocation. "The same rhetoric pops up all over the place. Things that are disproven, that are demonstrably untrue, continually get repeated."
Recent developments in the campaign against wind power include:
• A new $6m election ad buy by the ultra-conservative group Americans for Prosperity attacking Barack Obama's support for wind and solar power.
• An email and telephone campaign by the American Legislative Exchange Council and Americans for Tax Reform to repeal or alter clean energy mandates requiring electricity companies to get a share of their power from renewables.
• Putting forward Alec-drafted bills overturning those measures in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado, Montana and Washington state.
Droz, in the telephone interview, confirmed that he had enlisted support for telephone campaigns from Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks – both of which have received funds from the Koch family. He also appeared at an anti-wind forum sponsored by the John Locke Foundation in North Carolina last December.
But he dismissed any idea of a co-ordinated effort. "We happen to have common interests on some things," he said. "But it's not collusion."
But conservative activists describe the ramp-up as critical to the effort to defeat Obama in the elections. "It's absolutely a campaign issue and it's a big one," said Dave Schwartz, who heads the Maryland chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a tea party group with Koch funds. "It absolutely is a contentious issue," he said.
Kert Davies, Greenpeace research director, agrees. "They are going back to the states to create the space for an anti-Obama, anti-green energy thing. It is really a political attack," he said. " What the right wing wants to perpetuate is that this is a type of energy that never works and requires massive government handouts."
More than 30 local wind farm opponents, all selected by Droz, came to Washington at his invitation. Participants included members of conservative groups such as Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Tea Party Patriots.
A number said they had come to DC for strategy tips and PR advice. Three used the same phraseology as Droz who said the decision to meet and pool strategies was to avoid having to continually "reinvent the wheel".
"Everybody is amateur and everybody is learning from the ground up and re-inventing the wheel and the discussion among some of us was as to whether or not we could be a little more efficient and share resources and information," said Carolyn Gerwin an attorney and Tea Party activist from Pontiac Illinois who was among the participants.
Gerwin has been active in both Illinois Wind Watch and the Tea Party Patriots, and lobbied against wind energy at the state and federal level, her sign-in questionnaire for the February meeting said. "I'd like to see us develop a nationwide network of wind warriors that can be mobilised on very short notice," she wrote in a questionnaire distributed to participants.
There is evidence that network is already coming into being. Since the meeting, participants have pooled efforts to make phone calls and send email to members of Congress.
Opposing Obama's energy policies was a natural fit for conservatives, said Marita Noon, a conservative activist from New Mexico who was at the meeting. "The American way, what made CostCo and Walmart a success, is to use more and pay less. That's the American way," The president's green policies however were the reverse, she said.
"President Obama wants us to pay more and use less."
That set the stage for a confrontation over wind farms and other clean energy issues in the elections, Noon argued. "I would say it's almost the issue," she said. "It's going to be huge."
A number of rightwing organisations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.
Now a confidential strategy memo seen by the Guardian advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters.
The strategy proposal was prepared by a fellow of the American Tradition Institute (ATI) – although the thinktank has formally disavowed the project.
The proposal was discussed at a meeting of self-styled 'wind warriors' from across the country in Washington DC last February.
"These documents show for the first time that local Nimby anti-wind groups are co-ordinating and working with national fossil-fuel funded advocacy groups to wreck the wind industry," said Gabe Elsner, a co-director of the Checks and Balances, the accountability group which unearthed the proposal and other documents.
Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."
It suggests setting up "dummy businesses" to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a "counter-intelligence branch" to track the wind energy industry. It also calls for spending $750,000 to create an organisation with paid staff and tax-exempt status dedicated to building public opposition to state and federal government policies encouraging the wind energy industry.
The proposal was reviewed by John Droz Jr, a senior fellow at ATI, for discussion at the Washington meeting, which he also organised. ATI's executive director, Tom Tanton, said Droz had acted alone on the memo, although he confirmed he remains a fellow at the thinktank.
Droz is a longtime opponent of wind farms, arguing that the technology has not yet been proven and that wind technology should not receive government support. He claims 10,000 subscribers to his anti-wind-power email newsletter.
In a telephone interview, Droz said the Washington strategy session was his own initiative, and that neither he nor any of the participants had been paid for attending the session.
Their main priority was co-ordinating PR strategy. "Our No 1 reason for getting together was to talk about whether there should be agreement to talk about a common message."
The strategy session is the latest evidence of a concerted attack on the clean energy industry by thinktanks and lobby groups connected to oil and coal interests and free-market ideologues.
ATI is part of a loose coalition of ultra-conservative thinktanks and networks united by their efforts to discredit climate science and their close connections to the oil and gas industry, including the Koch family. Those groups include the Heartland Institute, the John Locke Foundation, and Americans for Prosperity, the organising arm of the Tea Party movement.
ATI is a relatively new entrant, coming to national attention only last year when it filed lawsuits against climate scientists including Michael Mann and James Hansen.
Campaign groups and spokespersons for the wind industry say there has been a sharp rise in organised opposition since early 2009 when Obama put investment in renewable energy at the heart of his economic recovery plan.
"We do see evidence of co-ordination," said Peter Kelley a spokesman for the American Wind Energy Assocation. "The same rhetoric pops up all over the place. Things that are disproven, that are demonstrably untrue, continually get repeated."
Recent developments in the campaign against wind power include:
• A new $6m election ad buy by the ultra-conservative group Americans for Prosperity attacking Barack Obama's support for wind and solar power.
• An email and telephone campaign by the American Legislative Exchange Council and Americans for Tax Reform to repeal or alter clean energy mandates requiring electricity companies to get a share of their power from renewables.
• Putting forward Alec-drafted bills overturning those measures in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Colorado, Montana and Washington state.
Droz, in the telephone interview, confirmed that he had enlisted support for telephone campaigns from Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks – both of which have received funds from the Koch family. He also appeared at an anti-wind forum sponsored by the John Locke Foundation in North Carolina last December.
But he dismissed any idea of a co-ordinated effort. "We happen to have common interests on some things," he said. "But it's not collusion."
But conservative activists describe the ramp-up as critical to the effort to defeat Obama in the elections. "It's absolutely a campaign issue and it's a big one," said Dave Schwartz, who heads the Maryland chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a tea party group with Koch funds. "It absolutely is a contentious issue," he said.
Kert Davies, Greenpeace research director, agrees. "They are going back to the states to create the space for an anti-Obama, anti-green energy thing. It is really a political attack," he said. " What the right wing wants to perpetuate is that this is a type of energy that never works and requires massive government handouts."
More than 30 local wind farm opponents, all selected by Droz, came to Washington at his invitation. Participants included members of conservative groups such as Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Tea Party Patriots.
A number said they had come to DC for strategy tips and PR advice. Three used the same phraseology as Droz who said the decision to meet and pool strategies was to avoid having to continually "reinvent the wheel".
"Everybody is amateur and everybody is learning from the ground up and re-inventing the wheel and the discussion among some of us was as to whether or not we could be a little more efficient and share resources and information," said Carolyn Gerwin an attorney and Tea Party activist from Pontiac Illinois who was among the participants.
Gerwin has been active in both Illinois Wind Watch and the Tea Party Patriots, and lobbied against wind energy at the state and federal level, her sign-in questionnaire for the February meeting said. "I'd like to see us develop a nationwide network of wind warriors that can be mobilised on very short notice," she wrote in a questionnaire distributed to participants.
There is evidence that network is already coming into being. Since the meeting, participants have pooled efforts to make phone calls and send email to members of Congress.
Opposing Obama's energy policies was a natural fit for conservatives, said Marita Noon, a conservative activist from New Mexico who was at the meeting. "The American way, what made CostCo and Walmart a success, is to use more and pay less. That's the American way," The president's green policies however were the reverse, she said.
"President Obama wants us to pay more and use less."
That set the stage for a confrontation over wind farms and other clean energy issues in the elections, Noon argued. "I would say it's almost the issue," she said. "It's going to be huge."
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Horses afraid of renewable energy?
In a recent article posted in the news (Feb 6/13), an anti-winder complained to the committee that, "Horses are flight animals. They flee, would you want to be on a horse when one of these wind turbines start up?"
(http://www.durhamregion.com/news/article/1576122--clarington-riding-school-wants-to-buck-wind-farm),
As I've come to expect from the anti-everything movement, that statement isn't accurate, and demonstrates either a lack of knowledge and understanding, or maybe an intention to mislead?
Reprinted from an article in May 2012, "Whitelee wind farm, Europe's largest, offers 90 kilometres of tracks for riding", "Wind farm projects like Whitelee have opened up hundreds of kilometres of tracks for equestrians that may never have been accessible before the projects were constructed,"
(http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/the-sceptic-tank-blog/2173578/horses-tilt-wind-turbines)
So a horse farm in the UK has used a wind development as an asset to increase the amount of available riding space. Maybe this is a single event, and is an isolated case?
Nope. Here is a video from Alberta, featuring Heidi Eijeil, who is the owner of Windy Coulee Canadian Horses near Pincher Creek. If there was anyone who has experience with horses and wind developments, it's Heidi, with 20 years of living among horses and turbines. It's important to point out the Eijiels live beside the wind park and have no financial involvement, or compensation from this facility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amfY3XZxg78
Mrs. Eijeil did an informational tour through South Western Ontario last year, speaking to groups about life beside a wind park. Did the anti-movement bother to listen? Why, of course not. "Go home," was the reaction of the people who came to the meeting at the Alhambra Hall, south of Grand Bend".
http://www.goderichsignalstar.com/2012/06/29/alberta-rancher-told-she-was-not-welcome-in-ontario
(http://www.durhamregion.com/news/article/1576122--clarington-riding-school-wants-to-buck-wind-farm),
As I've come to expect from the anti-everything movement, that statement isn't accurate, and demonstrates either a lack of knowledge and understanding, or maybe an intention to mislead?
Reprinted from an article in May 2012, "Whitelee wind farm, Europe's largest, offers 90 kilometres of tracks for riding", "Wind farm projects like Whitelee have opened up hundreds of kilometres of tracks for equestrians that may never have been accessible before the projects were constructed,"
(http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/the-sceptic-tank-blog/2173578/horses-tilt-wind-turbines)
So a horse farm in the UK has used a wind development as an asset to increase the amount of available riding space. Maybe this is a single event, and is an isolated case?
Nope. Here is a video from Alberta, featuring Heidi Eijeil, who is the owner of Windy Coulee Canadian Horses near Pincher Creek. If there was anyone who has experience with horses and wind developments, it's Heidi, with 20 years of living among horses and turbines. It's important to point out the Eijiels live beside the wind park and have no financial involvement, or compensation from this facility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amfY3XZxg78
Mrs. Eijeil did an informational tour through South Western Ontario last year, speaking to groups about life beside a wind park. Did the anti-movement bother to listen? Why, of course not. "Go home," was the reaction of the people who came to the meeting at the Alhambra Hall, south of Grand Bend".
http://www.goderichsignalstar.com/2012/06/29/alberta-rancher-told-she-was-not-welcome-in-ontario
On a final note, Ontario is at a crossroads, do we continue to support the growth of renewable energy by re-electing a Liberal gov in Ontario, or do we switch gears, midstream, and support a Regressive Conservative change to more nuclear development. If we follow the Regressive route, the picture below shows what horse ranches may look like in the future? It's our choice.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Margaret Wente.....Head Still in the Oil Well?
Ms Wente has been confronted on numerous occasions, over numerous articles containing allegedly plagiarized sections. The latest incident to be uncovered was November 2012, yet the Globe refuses to do anything about it. In a statement made by the Globe, Ms Wente was to be disciplined in an "unspecified" manner. Apparently CNN takes these issues much more seriously than the Globe does (re; Fareed Zakaria). Pity.
There was a day when the Globe was a respected newspaper, but if they continue to allow the unfettered, mistake filled editorials posted by her I'm afraid they regulate themselves to "infotainment" status in the future.
Here is her article, with rebuttals posted after each misleading section. You, the reader gets to decide which arguments make more sense, and which point actually backs up what it has to say. So read on, if it wasn't such a sad piece of tripe it would be humorous.
________________________________________________________________________________
There have been successful relocation projects in Ontario. Indeed much of Southern Ontarios Bald Eagle population is a direct result of “relocating” over 30 eaglets to the very conservation area that Scott Petrie (listed below) currently works in.
With help from Ontario based naturalists and biologists, NextEra has successfully erected 3 artificial eagle nests in Haldimand County, and have plans to erect a minimum of two more. Ontario residents will know in the coming weeks if these will be used by eagles. There are indications that an eagle had perched near one of the nests, but well need to patient for the environmental monitors to confirm this. Friends of Wind Ontarios website will be the first to offer a video describing how NextEra put these up, and what the success rate has been to date.
Ms Wente: "Ontario’s environmental regulations would
usually make this illegal. But the wind company, NextEra Energy, one of the
biggest operators in the province, had obtained special dispensation."
As majestic and
beautiful as Bald Eagles are, they are no longer an endangered species. On June
28, 2007 the United States de-listed Bald Eagles as an endangered species in
the lower 48 states. It was re-assigned a risk level of "least
concern" on the IUCN Red list. Canada followed the American lead in 2009,
moving eagles from endangered, to a species of "special concern".
However this new designation only applies to northern and southern Ontario, as
the species is not at risk nationally.Bald Eagles have rebounded to the point that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have developed a draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance document which specifies how it will work with the wind industry. In the 2009 Final Eagle Permit Rule, the Service laid out how it will, at its discretion, issue "take" permits that allow for limited mortality and disturbance of bald or golden eagles by wind power facilities. They have done this with the full realization that avian mortality is much greater from the effects of fossil fuels, and climate change, then from wind energy.
Ontarios Bald Eagles are now being held back by contamination from heavy metals, chiefly mercury and lead. "Long term exposure to mercury can limit the eagles’ reproductive capabilities, alter their behavior, impair their foraging abilities, increase their risk to disease, and even result in death."
The single largest source of mercury pollution today is through the use of coal for electrical generation. Every year the US produces over 42 tons of mercury that is released by coal plants into the atmosphere, contaminating the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the very food chain Eagles require for survival. 42% of all mercury emissions in the US come from coal plants. Can Ontarios coal plants be any cleaner?
Ms Wente: "Wind power is supposed to be environmentally friendly. But a lot of environmentalists don’t think so. “People couldn’t believe it happened,” says Scott Petrie, a waterfowl ecologist and executive director of Long Point Waterfowl, a conservation group. “Cutting down bald eagle nests flies in the face of anything you would call green energy.”
Long term, highly respected environmental groups support the use of green energy. Green Peace, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation, Clean Air Alliance, The Pembina Institute, TREC, Environmental Defense, The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and many, many others worldwide support the use of wind energy as a vehicle towards a cleaner planet.
All of these groups have come to the understanding that the status quo, which we’ve relied on for years, is broken. They acknowledge that we need to change our habits if we wish to obtain different results in the future. Expecting a cleaner world, without making the necessary changes is the true definition of insanity.
Ms Wente: Wind turbines have invaded many of Ontario’s most scenic and ecologically rich areas. They’re invading coastal wetlands and spreading along major migratory flyways – up the Bruce Peninsula, west to Lake Huron, south to Lake Erie, and east to Prince Edward County, where environmental groups are fighting a major wind development in Ostrander Point, an important bird area. “We have no idea whatsoever of the cumulative impact of these things,” says Dr. Petrie. Turbines chew up birds and other flying things, and they disrupt wildlife habitats.
Before I continue, please notice the placement of quotations in that last sentence. Dr Petrie does not say the final line, it is the personal opinion of Ms Wente. The argument against wind energy due to aesthetic reasons, strikes me as an extremely vain response to a large, worldwide problem. These are the kind of statements that helped propagate the use of the word “nimby” to describe the anti-wind movement.
The former president of the Audubon Society reported on energy based avian mortalities that, “Every resource of energy has some environmental consequences. Most of today's rapidly growing demand for energy is now being met by natural gas and expanded coal-burning power plants, which are this country's single greatest source of the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming. If we don't find ways to reduce these emissions, far more birds—and people—will be threatened by global warming than by wind turbines".
Further still, the National Audubon Society, has on its website, “Wind power is an important part of the strategy to combat global warming. Wind power is currently the most economically competitive form of renewable energy…. Expanding wind power instead of fossil fuels also avoids the wildlife and human health impacts of oil and gas drilling, coal mining and fossil fuel burning.”
Like any industry that is aware, and concerned with the effects of its technology, the wind industry has learned from past mistakes and has made great strides in reducing avian mortalities. Recent studies from Spain show how changes in the operating model of a wind park have been able to reduce impacts by over 90%.
Nobody would use the faults of a vehicle from 1981 to describe the current crop of automobiles, yet the anti-wind groups use statistics from the early 1980s as a model of modern wind energy. Not only is that misleading, but it borders on being irresponsible.
MS Went: But, in Ontario, nothing is allowed to trump Big Wind. Ontario’s Green Energy Act, the brainchild of outgoing Premier Dalton Mutiny, gave the green light to rampant wind development. By 2016, the goal is to more than double the amount of wind power being generated now.
Without the implementation of the GEA would any of these companies stepped up and changed their generation methods? The argument can be made that without the required “push” in the beginning, changes would never come to Ontario. As an example, would the automotive industry be offering cars that can obtain twice the mileage of an older vehicle if the EPA had not forced them into doing so?
This push, not only in Ontario, but in many locations worldwide, has had the added benefit of reducing costs associated with renewable energy platforms. This is clearly evident in the latest price changes to the MicroFIT program in Ontario. Wind has had the payment amounts reduced, and will likely see additional decrease as the industry matures and expands.
Ms Wente: Wind companies are not owned and operated by idealistic entrepreneurs. They are run by some of Canada’s, and the worlds, biggest corporations, including pipeline and pulp and paper companies. Wind contracts are flipped like other financial instruments. NextEra, the outfit that cut down the eagle’s nest, is the largest generator of wind and solar power in North America. Because of a lucrative U.S. tax break for wind power, the company has paid no U.S. corporate income tax for several years, despite billions in profits. Big Wind is among the biggest lobbyists in Washington.
This is a partial list of "big money lobbyists" as reported recently by the Center for Responsive Politics. The US Chanber of Commerce, High Tech, Oil, Agribusiness, Financial, Pharma, Defence, even the American Association of Retired Persons and, of course, the NRA. All FAR exceed the amounts contributed by wind energy. Notice how wind doesn't make the top 10 list?
The wind industry does not control the mechanisms of how electricity is traded; they merely operate within those parameters, like all forms of generation.
What NextEra does with the US tax system is of little concern to the Ontario ratepayer. What does concern Ontario citizens is that NextEra has contributed almost $1.6 billion to the economy of Ontario. Will NextEra be reimbursed for their investment? Certainly, that’s how a free market economy works. Companies and corporations make investments with the hope, and plan of being able to turn a profit.
There are very few companies that can afford to make that kind of a financial commitment, and in a global economy investment often comes from far and wide. By the government offering stability to manufacturers and developers through long term purchase contracts, they have provided for the investment of renewable energy, and new jobs in Ontario.
On the other side of this is the nuclear industry, heavily subsidized during all phases of its life cycle. With recent costs of cleaning up spent waste sites in the UK now topping $72 billion PER SITE, will Candu and Lavelin cover those costs, or will it be the taxpayers of Ontario? History says it will be us who cover those costs.
Ms Wente: Dalton McGuinty’s Green Energy Act was a spectacular policy blunder, based on a string of faulty premises: that coal emissions were killing us (they weren’t), that we’d soon be running out of fossil fuel (we aren’t, and Ontario doesn’t use much anyway), and that switching to green energy would help save the planet (not in our lifetime). As the price of fossil fuels went up and up, the reasoning went, renewables would become more and more competitive. Just one problem: The price of fossil fuels has plummeted.
The Canadian Medical Association calculated that, in 2008, air pollution killed 21,000 Canadians and it projected that, by 2031, the “number of deaths due to long-term exposure to air pollution will be 710,000.” This report was fully endorsed by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Lung Association, CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment), and the Asthma Society of Canada – combined these groups represents tens of thousands of health professionals.
All fossil fuels are a finite resource, refusing to acknowledge this fact is both irresponsible and dangerous. We have all experienced the erratic nature of finite resources, with pricing changing drastically, seemingly overnight. And although fracing has uncovered large amounts of natural gas (while releasing vast amounts of GHG in the form of methane), those resource are still finite, and still susceptible to wild price fluctuations. As for "plummeting" well they did, but that's behind us now.
Between April and October 2012, the effective price of NG from Union Gas rose 8.2%, from Enbridge its risen 8.4%, and this during a time of abundance?
Renewable energy platforms however will never suffer from this issue, price guarantees for 20 years, and no chance of rising fuel costs (ever) that can be passed to the ratepayer. Wind power is slightly more expensive now, but with the passage of time, and the change that brings in the value of money, it becomes less expensive every day. In 20 years it will seem like a comparable bargain when placed beside fossil fuel generators.
Ms Wente: In order to promote green energy, governments around the world have handed out billions in the form of subsidies and fixed long-term contracts. A very generous Ontario became an international magnet for wind and solar companies. The money was guaranteed, and the approval process was easy.
Yes the money is guaranteed for the period of the contract. This has brought investment stability, with corporations investing billions of dollars into Ontario (NerxtEra alone at $1.8 billion), and creating thousands of man hours of employment in Ontario. It also allows for price stability over a long period of time, which allows for stable pricing well into the future.
Ms Wente: Today, the wind power generated in Ontario is both expensive and useless. The province actually pays hundreds of millions of dollars to other jurisdictions to take surplus power off its hands. Energy-intensive companies are leaving because their hydro bills are too high. And taxpayers are stuck with 20-year contracts that will add billions to their hydro bills (and/or the provincial deficit). For the record, Ontario’s incoming premier, Kathleen Wynne, is a big fan of these arrangements. But even a saner government wouldn’t be able to undo them.
I would suggest that Ms Wente research the monthly reports titled, "Ontario Electricity Exports Bulletin" produced by the Ministry of Energy. Here is a reprinted section from September 2012, "Ontario's electricity market generated almost $15 million in August by exporting electricity to other states and provinces, bringing total net export revenues to more than $142 million this year".
Notice that's NET REVENUE?
Too continue from the report, "Since 2006, the electricity market has generated $1.9 billion through net exports compared to 2002 and 2003 when Ontario paid $900 million to import power". How is this bad for the ratepayers of Ontario?
As for adding billions to our electrical bills, the Ontario Energy Boards report from April 25, 2012 (Monitoring Report on the IESO-Administered Electricity Markets) clearly states that ALL forms of renewable energy (wind, solar, ethanol) have contributed 6% of the total increase in our electrical rates. Contrary to "expensive" wind power, Nuclear contributed 45% to the increase, NG contributed 13% and coal power a startling 28%.
Economic reports indicate that over 70% of the jobs that have left Ontario since 2008 are the direct result of the increase in the Canadian dollar, not the cost of energy. Recent accusations that GM will be leaving Oshawa over electrical rates does not pan out when you consider the price differential between Michigan and Ontario. Would GM move production over less than $40 per unit? The economics of recent labour negotiations offer a much larger impact on the production cost of a vehicle. (UAW vs CAW contracts)
Ms Wente: Meantime, the wind juggernaut rolls on. “It’s ripping communities apart,” says Heather Sprott, whose family owns a 300-acre farm near the Niagara Escarpment. Farmers in the area have been offered as much as $20,000 a year for each turbine they allow on their land, meaning they could reap $60,000 or $80,000 a year by harvesting the wind. “That’s a lot of money for a farmer,” she says. But she’s not tempted. She loves the views, and worries about potential health effects.
I have yet to read that the GEA has pointed a gun at a rural turbine construction worker, picketed the residence of a turbine owner, or sabotaged a wind development. It has never used a live Bald Eagle in a protest, has never used a bull horn to stop others from speaking their opinion, nor has it stalled developments, raising costs. The GEA has not backlogged the ERT, nor has it verbally attacked anybody. These are the tactics of the anti-everything brigade, and it is those tactics that are ripping apart the fabric of rural Ontario.
Each municipality has an option to work with, or against a development. Some municipalities that decided early on to work with them have been able to reap the rewards of a new and growing industry. Land lease agreements have allowed farmers to stay on their properties, increasing farm revenues while adding cash to their bank balances (and the local economy). It has also allowed farmers to not only feed cities, but help produce the electricity to power them.
Ms Wente: In Britain, the tide is turning against wind power. The U.K. has 3,000 onshore turbines, with another 6,000 in the works. Big Wind’s opponents include prominent environmentalists such as James Lovelock, best known for the Gaia theory, which theorizes that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity.
Mr Lovelocks book, from 2006 takes his theory one step further, stating "most of the earth becoming uninhabitable for humans and other life-forms by the middle of this century, with a massive extension of tropical deserts" It also concludes that "(he) rejects scientific modeling that disagrees with the scientific findings that sea levels are rising faster, and Arctic ice is melting faster, than the models predict and he suggests that we may already be beyond the tipping point of terrestrial climate into a permanently hot state". Given these conditions, Lovelock "expects human civilization will be hard pressed to survive".
The world may indeed be a self-regulating biosphere, but it didn't take into account the damage humans have been able to do, and the earths limited ability to "bounce back".
Britians tide is turning? Ms Wente should get out more, "Survey reveals 79 per cent of UK public support renewable energy, as UK wind farms post record output". This article, printed Feb 5, 2013 goes even further, "Of the 2,107 people polled in December and January just four per cent were opposed to using renewable energy, a number that has remained consistent across the previous three attitudes surveys conducted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)".
Ms Wente: Mr. Lovelock is trying to stop a 20-storey wind turbine planned for his neighborhood. In his protest letter, he writes: “We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need to take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilization.”
"trying to stop a 20-storey wind turbine planned for his neighborhood". Why? How does providing clean, sustainable energy separate human needs from the planets needs? A reduction in GHG and all forms of pollution is a net benefit for everything on the planet, and the planet itself. To me, it seems to mesh perfectly at what Mr Lovelock wants, a symbiotic relationship between the earth and its inhabitants.
Mr Lovelock would prefer that we all give up, enjoy the little time we have left, and reside to the fact that humans on this earth are doomed within the next century. Here is an excerpt from an interview with him in 2008, "global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet from becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics".
Apparently it's much easier to give up when you’re in the final stages of life, then when you’re in the early stages.
__________________________________________________________________________________
It should be plainly obvious by now that Ms Wente has a
mission devoid of the very ethics professional journalist should abide by. In reading her article it becomes
painfully clear that she has an agenda, and it's not about producing quality, researched
articles. It's to offer one sided, smear based articles devoid of facts, in order to create controversy in a lame, mis-guided attempt to woo readers.
Maybe
she should stick with merely copying others work after all, it certainly would be better than
her current, misleading, ill-informed style of writing. And probably better researched.
http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Natural%20Gas/Natural%20Gas%20Rates/Natural%20Gas%20Rates%20-%20Historical
2.
http://news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2012/09/september-2012-ontario-electricity-exports-bulletin.html
3. http://policy.audubon.org/wind-and-eagles
4.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/wind-power-key-to-fight-climat/
5. http://www.birdsontario.org/download/sample_baea.pdf
6.
http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=107
7. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Bald_Eagle/lifehistory
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle
10. http://www.bsc-eoc.org/baeaont.html
11. http://www.hww.ca/en/species/birds/bald-eagle.html
12. http://www.birdscanada.org/download/BAEArpt.pdf
13. http://policy.audubon.org/wind-power-overview-0
14. http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2241534/eight-of-10-brits-prefer-renewable-energy?WT.rss_f=Home&WT.rss_a=Eight+of+10+Brits+prefer+renewable+energy
15. The Revenge of Gaiaa, James Lovelock, 2006
16. The Vanishing Face of Gaia, James Lovelock, 2009
17. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/25/cbc_suspends_margaret_wente_from_media_panel_following_plagiarism_allegations.html
18. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/25/margaret_wente_affair_a_timeline_of_plagiarism_allegations.html
19. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-126360/High-cost-nuclear-waste.html#axzz2K3dEAX4J20. http://mediaculpapost.blogspot.ca/2013/02/margaret-wentes-big-wind-another-error.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A littl more searching produced this,
"Lori Griffin on said:
Thanks Lori and Paul"